Disclosing pay

Two City Council members' non-disclosure of financial interests suggests a weak ethics ordinance

Lansing City Council President Carol Wood
earned at least $4,700 as a consultant to political campaigns in 2012,
yet she didn’t have to report any information on it under the city’s
ethics ordinance.

Moreover, City Councilman Derrick Quinney
did not report any outside income for 2010 and 2011 — a violation of
that ordinance because he’s worked full time for the Michigan AFL-CIO
for over a decade.

Yet the city’s Board of Ethics has not
requested further information on Quinney’s and Wood’s statements of
financial disclosure because no one has approached the board with a
complaint. Still, that board reviews the annual statements required
under ordinance to see if any further information is needed.

A review of City Council membersī annual
statements of financial disclosure from the past three years shows a
policy that is weak on reporting requirements, particularly for
part-time elected officials who have outside jobs. In the case of Wood,
she is being paid directly by campaigns of elected officials. For 2012,
Wood reported that she had no clients that year, even though her
business was paid by the campaigns of Circuit Judge James Jamo and 68th
House District Democratic candidate Griffin Rivers.

Lansing City Clerk Chris Swope said the
17-year-old ethics ordinance does not specifically require additional
details about Council members’ income and therefore he doesn’t believe
Wood is in violation. But while the ordinance doesn’t require it, the
official “statement of financial interests” document asks respondents to
answer 12 follow-up questions in an attachment. Those questions
include: “What are thing you actually do in the business?” “Who are your
clients and who receives your goods or services?” “How and where are
your services performed?” “Does your business or employer contract with
the City?”

When asked if he thinks the ordinance
lacks teeth, Swope, whose office turns the disclosures over to the
ethics board once filed, said: “It’s tough because if there were a
finding, I think it would become pretty public if there was a finding of
wrongdoing or conflict. The public is really the judge of elected
officials.

“It’s clearly something that when there’s
a real problem I think there’s the ability to do an investigation and
bring things to light. But I guess I can see your point.”

Interviews with three Board of Ethics members suggest that the board only looks into issues if a complaint is brought forward.

Since a formal complaint has not been
filed against Wood, Swope said he will simply follow up with her and
request the information. The Board of Ethics has “options,” Swope said,
if it finds any wrongdoing, which could include referring it to the City
Attorney’s Office for potential criminal prosecution or by issuing
reports.

Board member Douglas Meeks, an attorney
in private practice who was appointed by the mayor in fall 2011, said
the board would review an ethics complaint if it was filed. “We don’t
personally investigate it as a body. We only investigate once it was
brought to us.”

Meeks did not recall any issues with
Quinney’s or Wood’s statements. “If something was missing, if we had
knowledge of it, we would make a request, send it back to them and
request it be completed appropriately then we would re-review it.”

Board member Penny Gardner also could not
recall any issues with those two statements. “It seems like we go
through those things ad nauseum. If something was missing, the chair
would send it back and table it until we got important documents.
Whether those were received and recorded I can’t be clear on.”

Board member Keith Kris also was unaware of any issues with those members’ documents.

The Rev. John Folkers, chairman of the ethics board, declined to comment for this story and referred questions to Swope.

On May 8, 2012, the board reviewed 17
statements of disclosure during a 31-minute meeting that also included
other agenda items, meeting minutes show. It apparently overlooked
Quinney’s “N/A” response to questions about outside employment and did
not request more details about Wood’s CEW Consultant business. Quinney
reported “N/A” for the calendar years 2010 and 2011, but listed the
AFL-CIO as his employer for 2012.

Wood did not provide details about her
income from CEW Consultant in 2011, even though she provided some in
2010 and 2012. In her most recent disclosure, which is due annually by
May 1, Wood said she had “none this year” when asked about clients in
2012, even though she made at least $4,700 in income from Jamo and
Rivers.

Swope said her lack of reporting is not a
violation because even though the form asks for details, the ordinance
does not require it.

All other Council members appear to be in compliance.

The reports do not require Council
members to disclose how much income they make, but it does require
disclosure of the source of any income over $2,500 in the past calendar
year if its from an “organization or entity.” Wood claims her consulting
business as a “business interest and supplemental employment,” which
includes owners of a business entity, and there is no income threshold
with that. The form simply asks for the name, address and type of
business. If there is one listed, the form asks Council members to
complete an attached document that asks 12 more specific questions about
the nature of the job.

City Council members are paid $20,200 a
year for the part-time job. The president receives an additional $2,000 a
year and the vice president an extra $750.

The citizen’s advisory ethics board only
investigates complaints that are brought to it, even though it reviews
the disclosure statements annually. Both Wood and Quinney were unaware
of any issues, they said, because they were not notified of any
wrongdoing.

“Nothing came back to me saying it was
incomplete,” Wood said recently. “They didn’t tell me they were missing
anything.” Wood did not provide the details over the past few weeks when
asked if she had them from 2011, saying she was preoccupied with the
budget process.

At first, Quinney said Monday he thought
he was in compliance and wasn’t required to disclose the information
based on “what I was instructed by the city clerk.” Then he changed
course, saying that the City Clerk’s Office “did mention it. It was an
error on my part that I didn’t report it.”

Quinney is the health and safety director for the Michigan
AFL-CIO. Wood claims income from CEW Consultant, activities for which
she describes as “consulting” when asked on a form, “What are the things
you actually do in the business?” In
2010 and 2012, when the form asks, “Who are your clients and who
receives your goods or services?” Wood says: “None this year.”

But Wood had
clients in the past calendar year. Campaign finance reports for 2012
show that Jamo and Rivers paid a combined $4,700 to CEW Consultant.
Rivers spent $3,000 between January and June 2012, while Jamo spent
$1,700 between May and November 2012.

Swope said Tuesday that the Board of
Ethics has asked him to follow up with Wood to “answer the (income)
question on her most recent filing in a different manner. I have not had
the opportunity to do that. I will be following up with her and asking
her to provide an answer.”

The “statement of financial interests” is
required annually for all elected and appointed officers in the city
and the Lansing Board of Water and Light. It also shows when Council
members receive gifts of more than $500, such as tickets to Common
Ground and Lugnuts games. Appointed members to other city boards,
commissions or agencies are not required to complete it. Once its filed
with the Clerk’s Office, “It is then the Board of Ethics’ duty and
responsibility to review the disclosed information for compliance with
the ethics provisions of the Charter and ordinances,” according to a
letter attached to the document.

“Eye candy of the Week,”
our weekly look at some of the nicer properties in Lansing, will return
next week. If you have a suggestion, please e-mail
eye@lansingcitypulse.com or call Andy Balaskovitz at 999-5064.